Boston University Students React to Markoff
By Jack Edison
BOSTON—The arraignment of Philip Markoff shocked the Boston University community. B.U. student Aaron Rubin said that murder in the Marriot Copley Hotel is very unsettling. “When I found out that it was a B.U. student, that was the icing on the cake,” exclaimed the senior, holding a poorly wrapped burrito in the GSU.
Junior Khalil Hussein, who plans to enter B.U.’s medical school this coming fall, is reserving judgment. “He hasn’t been convicted,” claimed Hussein.
The murder “can’t be explained really,” said Hussein. A lucrative career in medicine awaited Markoff. “He could have a pathological problem,” stated Hussein.
The murder surprised B.U. senior Brian Goldenberg. He pointed out that while police suspect Markoff of murder, it seems unlikely that he would want to kill someone. However, Markoff could just be a psycho who “is angry at women,” said Goldenberg.
Brian’s friend Greg also doubts the charges against Markoff’s. But he said that “crazy people are out the there,” and the facts remain unknown.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Immigration Reaction
First-Generation Student’s View on Immigration Affected by His Parents Journey
By Jack Edison
BOSTON –– Khalil Hussein, a medical student in a seven-year program at Boston University, enjoys rooting for his hometown Miami Dolphins, eating hot dogs and playing Halo 3 on the Xbox 360 game console. His parents’ unconventional journey to America allowed him to live a typical young American-male life.
Twenty-one year-old Hussein is the son of a Lebanese doctor, Atif Hussein, and a Filipino nurse, Dina Tariman. Tariman left the Philippines in 1982 to take a job as a nurse in Beirut. “If you are willing to work in a war zone, they pay you a premium,” explained Hussein. His mother did not know Arabic culture or language.
His parents met through “forced socialization” because of the violence surrounding the medical facilities and their living quarters. “My dad often encountered gunmen on the road and had to bribe them,” pointed out Hussein.
The violence increased in 1984 and his parents, despite their passion for Beirut, opted to immigrate to America to raise a family. Through his connections at the American University in Beirut Medical School, Atif Hussein entered the University of Miami Medical School.
“The dean of the American University of Beirut Medical School had to sign a form saying that my dad wasn't a terrorist, and if my dad committed terrorist acts that he would take responsibility as a co-conspirator,” revealed Khalil.
The University of Miami did not pay for his father’s fellowship. “They know they have a lot of authority because a foreigner can’t come to the U.S. unless they have a job lined up,” said Khalil.
His parents began a family once his father began getting paid by the university. They moved out of their one-bedroom apartment and into a house. Khalil was born in 1988, while his sister Karen and brother Kamal were born in 1986 and 1991.
“When deciding what to name us, when deciding what religion we would be, when deciding what language it would be, it was all decided by the fact that this is a predominately Christian country,” explained Hussein. Hussein and his siblings have English middle names in case their Arabic ones become disadvantageous to their career.
Hussein’s English proficiency also concerned his father. “My dad preferred I was 100 percent proficient at English rather than 90 percent proficient at English and then 50 percent proficient at Arabic,” said Hussein, since his tests would be in English.
Although Hussein grew up immersed in American culture, his parents’ journey to the U.S. helped shape his views on immigration.
“Ironically, legal immigrants are some of the most anti-illegal immigration people,” chuckled Hussein. His father passed many tests to practice medicine in the U.S., including biochemistry, American history, and an English proficiency exam that expected foreigners to know English slang.
Illegal immigrants bypass these tests that hardworking foreigners must take in order to work and live in the U.S. “It is really not fair to anyone, especially legal immigrants, but it is the fault of the system. You give people an incentive to come here but you don't give them a legal way to do it,” according to Hussein.
“The current policy of, ‘If you make it to the U.S., you are ok,’ is ridiculous,” said Hussein. “It is like building a bank filled with gold and putting a safe door but telling people that if they manage to get through the safe all the gold is theirs.”
American immigration policy is still one of the easiest in the Western world despite having a long immigration process. “American immigration laws are more chaotic than they should be and less fair than they should be, but they are better than the vast majorities of countries,” admitted Hussein.
By Jack Edison
BOSTON –– Khalil Hussein, a medical student in a seven-year program at Boston University, enjoys rooting for his hometown Miami Dolphins, eating hot dogs and playing Halo 3 on the Xbox 360 game console. His parents’ unconventional journey to America allowed him to live a typical young American-male life.
Twenty-one year-old Hussein is the son of a Lebanese doctor, Atif Hussein, and a Filipino nurse, Dina Tariman. Tariman left the Philippines in 1982 to take a job as a nurse in Beirut. “If you are willing to work in a war zone, they pay you a premium,” explained Hussein. His mother did not know Arabic culture or language.
His parents met through “forced socialization” because of the violence surrounding the medical facilities and their living quarters. “My dad often encountered gunmen on the road and had to bribe them,” pointed out Hussein.
The violence increased in 1984 and his parents, despite their passion for Beirut, opted to immigrate to America to raise a family. Through his connections at the American University in Beirut Medical School, Atif Hussein entered the University of Miami Medical School.
“The dean of the American University of Beirut Medical School had to sign a form saying that my dad wasn't a terrorist, and if my dad committed terrorist acts that he would take responsibility as a co-conspirator,” revealed Khalil.
The University of Miami did not pay for his father’s fellowship. “They know they have a lot of authority because a foreigner can’t come to the U.S. unless they have a job lined up,” said Khalil.
His parents began a family once his father began getting paid by the university. They moved out of their one-bedroom apartment and into a house. Khalil was born in 1988, while his sister Karen and brother Kamal were born in 1986 and 1991.
“When deciding what to name us, when deciding what religion we would be, when deciding what language it would be, it was all decided by the fact that this is a predominately Christian country,” explained Hussein. Hussein and his siblings have English middle names in case their Arabic ones become disadvantageous to their career.
Hussein’s English proficiency also concerned his father. “My dad preferred I was 100 percent proficient at English rather than 90 percent proficient at English and then 50 percent proficient at Arabic,” said Hussein, since his tests would be in English.
Although Hussein grew up immersed in American culture, his parents’ journey to the U.S. helped shape his views on immigration.
“Ironically, legal immigrants are some of the most anti-illegal immigration people,” chuckled Hussein. His father passed many tests to practice medicine in the U.S., including biochemistry, American history, and an English proficiency exam that expected foreigners to know English slang.
Illegal immigrants bypass these tests that hardworking foreigners must take in order to work and live in the U.S. “It is really not fair to anyone, especially legal immigrants, but it is the fault of the system. You give people an incentive to come here but you don't give them a legal way to do it,” according to Hussein.
“The current policy of, ‘If you make it to the U.S., you are ok,’ is ridiculous,” said Hussein. “It is like building a bank filled with gold and putting a safe door but telling people that if they manage to get through the safe all the gold is theirs.”
American immigration policy is still one of the easiest in the Western world despite having a long immigration process. “American immigration laws are more chaotic than they should be and less fair than they should be, but they are better than the vast majorities of countries,” admitted Hussein.
American Bar Association Midyear Meeting
Media’s Free Speech in Jeopardy
By Jack Edison
BOSTON – Broadcast networks fear that they will not escape government censorship. If the U.S. Supreme Court rules this summer against Fox Broadcasting Company in the case Federal Communications Commission v Fox Television Stations, then documentaries, dramas, reality shows, and live events containing curse words would face government intervention.
This is the first case heard by the Supreme Court concerning the broadcast of indecent material since the court’s 1978 FCC v Pacifica Foundation ruling. In that decision, the Supreme Court maintained the commission’s authority to fine broadcasters for uttering inappropriate words on national television.
The American Bar Association’s midyear meeting held in Boston invited a panel of four lawyers to talk about the future of broadcasting and government regulation.
FCC v Fox Television Stations is the first case in 30 years to challenge the government’s role in moderating “fleeting expletives,” or indecent words and actions. Russell Frisby, the event’s moderator and the partner-in-charge of the Telecom Group of Fleischman and Harding, L.L.P. in Washington D.C., called this “a period of change at both the FCC and in the communications area in general.”
The FCC ordered in 2006 stations to banish single instances of indecent language because of curse words said by Cher, Nicole Richie and Bono during the preceding years. Up until 2006, the FCC had not interfered with broadcast networks when isolated instances of fleeting expletives surfaced.
Broadcasters received fines after 2006 from the FCC for isolated incidents involving indecent material. “Indecency can be mild nudity. It can be words. It can be sexual innuendoes,” stated Maureen O’Connell, senior vice president of Regulatory and Government Affairs for News Corporation, which owns all FOX stations.
FCC Deputy General Counsel Joe Palmore accepted O’Connell’s definition of indecency, but claimed that it is the commission’s job “to strike the appropriate public-interest balance when private actors use or provide access to public networks.” Joe also stressed that the 2006 order “did not impose any penalties” on the broadcaster. It only suggested that networks take more initiative to protect children from harmful material.
The FCC, however, is not universally enforcing its new policy. Palmore stated that the “commission’s decision not to enforce an across-the-board stand on these words could not be irrational since it was the direct result of a contextual approach to indecency that was discussed and endorsed by the Supreme Court in the Pacifica decision itself.”
“In the case of ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ where you have soldiers storming the beach at Normandy, it is one thing for [indecent] words to be used. Whereas when you have a celebrity such as Nicole Richie, casual talking off the words during an award show with a lot of children in the audience, it is something different,” said Palmore, smiling at the chuckling crowd.
O’Connell disagreed with Palmore and insisted that the FCC’s contextual approach to censorship violates the First Amendment. She countered Joe’s example with one involving a Martin Scorsese documentary.
The FCC fined a PBS station in San Mateo, Calif., $15,000 because it aired a documentary on the blues in which the musicians and producers used foul language. “Apparently, if the expletives had been said by blues performers and not by the label owners or record producers, they would not have gotten fined,” exclaimed Maureen. “This is the government sitting in the editing booth at our TV studios telling us what to do. That’s not taking context into account.”
There are ways for the audience to self-censor television broadcasts. Viewers have relied on the V-Chip to filter out indecent programming for children. But the FCC is not satisfied with the V-Chip’s ability to block shows. Ratings can be confusing, said Palmore, and “while there is some blocking technology today, the commission has found as a factual matter that the blocking technology is ineffective.”
“Parents can choose to use it or not,” O’Connell replied. She also added that parents must take an active role in monitoring shows their children watch. “When my daughter was young, this was my V-Chip: The on/off switch on the television.”
The outcome of FCC v Fox Television Studios “depends on how the Supreme Court decides to frame the case, broadly or narrowly,” admitted Palmore. The networks want a broad decision, encompassing the First Amendment, while the commission prefers a narrow one.
The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals expressed doubt that the 2006 policy would pass constitutional muster under the First Amendment. Pending FCC cases against broadcast networks will wait for the Supreme Court ruling in FCC v Fox Television Stations before proceeding, agreed O’Connell and Palmore.
By Jack Edison
BOSTON – Broadcast networks fear that they will not escape government censorship. If the U.S. Supreme Court rules this summer against Fox Broadcasting Company in the case Federal Communications Commission v Fox Television Stations, then documentaries, dramas, reality shows, and live events containing curse words would face government intervention.
This is the first case heard by the Supreme Court concerning the broadcast of indecent material since the court’s 1978 FCC v Pacifica Foundation ruling. In that decision, the Supreme Court maintained the commission’s authority to fine broadcasters for uttering inappropriate words on national television.
The American Bar Association’s midyear meeting held in Boston invited a panel of four lawyers to talk about the future of broadcasting and government regulation.
FCC v Fox Television Stations is the first case in 30 years to challenge the government’s role in moderating “fleeting expletives,” or indecent words and actions. Russell Frisby, the event’s moderator and the partner-in-charge of the Telecom Group of Fleischman and Harding, L.L.P. in Washington D.C., called this “a period of change at both the FCC and in the communications area in general.”
The FCC ordered in 2006 stations to banish single instances of indecent language because of curse words said by Cher, Nicole Richie and Bono during the preceding years. Up until 2006, the FCC had not interfered with broadcast networks when isolated instances of fleeting expletives surfaced.
Broadcasters received fines after 2006 from the FCC for isolated incidents involving indecent material. “Indecency can be mild nudity. It can be words. It can be sexual innuendoes,” stated Maureen O’Connell, senior vice president of Regulatory and Government Affairs for News Corporation, which owns all FOX stations.
FCC Deputy General Counsel Joe Palmore accepted O’Connell’s definition of indecency, but claimed that it is the commission’s job “to strike the appropriate public-interest balance when private actors use or provide access to public networks.” Joe also stressed that the 2006 order “did not impose any penalties” on the broadcaster. It only suggested that networks take more initiative to protect children from harmful material.
The FCC, however, is not universally enforcing its new policy. Palmore stated that the “commission’s decision not to enforce an across-the-board stand on these words could not be irrational since it was the direct result of a contextual approach to indecency that was discussed and endorsed by the Supreme Court in the Pacifica decision itself.”
“In the case of ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ where you have soldiers storming the beach at Normandy, it is one thing for [indecent] words to be used. Whereas when you have a celebrity such as Nicole Richie, casual talking off the words during an award show with a lot of children in the audience, it is something different,” said Palmore, smiling at the chuckling crowd.
O’Connell disagreed with Palmore and insisted that the FCC’s contextual approach to censorship violates the First Amendment. She countered Joe’s example with one involving a Martin Scorsese documentary.
The FCC fined a PBS station in San Mateo, Calif., $15,000 because it aired a documentary on the blues in which the musicians and producers used foul language. “Apparently, if the expletives had been said by blues performers and not by the label owners or record producers, they would not have gotten fined,” exclaimed Maureen. “This is the government sitting in the editing booth at our TV studios telling us what to do. That’s not taking context into account.”
There are ways for the audience to self-censor television broadcasts. Viewers have relied on the V-Chip to filter out indecent programming for children. But the FCC is not satisfied with the V-Chip’s ability to block shows. Ratings can be confusing, said Palmore, and “while there is some blocking technology today, the commission has found as a factual matter that the blocking technology is ineffective.”
“Parents can choose to use it or not,” O’Connell replied. She also added that parents must take an active role in monitoring shows their children watch. “When my daughter was young, this was my V-Chip: The on/off switch on the television.”
The outcome of FCC v Fox Television Studios “depends on how the Supreme Court decides to frame the case, broadly or narrowly,” admitted Palmore. The networks want a broad decision, encompassing the First Amendment, while the commission prefers a narrow one.
The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals expressed doubt that the 2006 policy would pass constitutional muster under the First Amendment. Pending FCC cases against broadcast networks will wait for the Supreme Court ruling in FCC v Fox Television Stations before proceeding, agreed O’Connell and Palmore.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
London Summer 2009
I will create a blog in the next few weeks to cover my summer semester studying in London. I hope to update my coming London blog a few times a week with pictures, stories, experiences and more.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)